In, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the interpretation of a standard form contract is a matter of law alone, and not a matter of mixed fact and law. Accordingly, it is not sufficient for a judge to arrive at a reasonable […]

You might think that there is one answer to this question. But in Pickering Square Inc. v. Trillium College Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario recently reminded us that there are two answers, depending on whether the innocent party accepts the repudiation or not. If the repudiation is accepted, then the contract comes to […]

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. is a remarkable document. It is more than a judicial decision. It is literally a textbook or checklist for the interpretation of contracts and the review of arbitration decisions. Background First, the context. Creston agreed to pay Sattva a finder’s […]

Canadian courts will generally over-rule a decision of a domestic arbitral tribunal only if the decision is “unreasonable.” What does this word mean? Is the standard of “unreasonableness” different in a commercial arbitration than, say, in a labour or employment arbitration? If the arbitral award is found to fall within the bounds of reasonableness by […]

A difficult issue that may arise between contractors and subcontractors is the nature of their contractual relationship. Are they: independent contractors; or partners; or joint venturers; or employees one of the other? In WCI Waste Conversion Inc. v. ADI International Inc, The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal recently considered whether a contractor and subcontractor […]

In two recent decisions, courts in Ontario and British Columbia have held that negligence during construction (or manufacturing) may be covered by general liability policies even though the damage is part of the construction (or the product sold): California Kitchens & Bath Ltd. v. AXA Canada Inc. and Bulldog Bag Ltd. v. AXA Pacific Insurance […]